Belgium and France have banned the Burqa and the new Dutch government is considering doing the same. Critics have charged that the ban is religiously intolerant, some even claim that it’s intolerant of women, but the truth is that the Burqa is dangerous to women. Both those who wear it and those who don’t. Why?

The Burka covers up abuse.

According to the Quran a man can beat his wife if she does not submit. I'm sorry. That is wrong. That is not democracy. That is not protected by the Constitutipn of the United States. The Burka is the complete dishonoring of women, the covering of abuse, and a threat to the national security of the United States of America.

In cases of domestic abuse, the Burqa doesn’t just isolate the woman, it also covers up evidence of the abuse. It gives the abuser the freedom to brutalize his partner without worrying that anyone will even notice.

The Quran says that men are unable to not rape a woman if she is sexually attractive and does not cover up. Really? Why can I resist? Am I the greatest sexually powerful man that has ever lived?!?!? Surely not....

The Quran gives a similar justification for a head to toe covering for women, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

Good God man... Women have rights. You don't like it? I don't care. You think women are inferior? I think YOU are inferior. There's the door. Don't hit it on the way out...

*

Civic Participation-

The essence of a modern society is that it extends civic participation to everyone. Deliberately preventing an entire gender from participating in society as identifiable individuals is an assault on the democratic character of the state.

*

Individuals are recognizable through personal attributes. Remove those attributes and you remove the individuality as well. The Sahih Bukhari relates that one inspiration for the Burqa was that one of Mohammed’s followers was able to recognize one of his wives at night. The implication is that the Burqa is meant to prevent such recognition from taking place. Women are not meant to be recognized as individuals. Or to be empowered to make their own decisions. NOT OKAY...

The Burqa is designed to impede interaction outside the home. The failure to be recognized as an individual is dehumanizing and deprives women of their role in civic life. NOT OKAY...

*

Countries where the Burqa is in wide use, have low rates of female civic participation. In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to vote. In parts of Pakistan, women are not allowed to vote as well. In Afghanistan women were shunted into female only polling stations, or forced to vote by proxy through a male family member. NOT OKAY...

The rise of such segregation in Europe would threaten the democratic character of the society. But should the Burqa become widespread, the status of some European women living in national capitals would begin to resemble those of Saudi and Pakistani women. NOT OKAY...

*

Segregation is Discrimination

Purdah segregates women at homes and the Burqa segregates them in public. While the authorities cannot interfere with what people choose to do in their own homes—the public wearing of the Burqa is a statement that women are unequal and must be segregated.

Such an attitude is an assault on the legal place of women in society. It imposes the norms of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the streets of Paris and London. Like a Klan march, it a dehumanizing and intimidating statement of bigotry against a segment of society. While in the United States, such marches are legal, in much of Europe they are not.

If radicals are prevented from making public statements about the inferiority of races, why should they be permitted to assert the inferiority of a gender.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other,” the Koran itself says. Replace ‘women’ with any race or religion, and a public assertion of such a thing would be cause for criminal proceedings. Correct?

Delegating the segregation of the Burka on women in an institution of a bigoted creed that dehumanizes an entire gender. While Muslims are perfectly welcome to believe whatever they want, a public display that dehumanizes women as a gender by treating their faces as obscene, is an intolerant violation of the norms of civil society and a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

*

(Quran 2:223)

"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth righteousness!"

Not okay...

The Burka is a violation of the Constitution. The Burka kills womens' rights, and we have no declarative proof that these women simply accept the Burka...What if they do not?

Pro says that women are oppressed by having to wear the burqa. However "Those who say they are defending women's rights have it exactly backward: they are violating fundamental rights to free expression and religious freedom" [1]. My opponent claims to care for women's rights, yet he wants to take away women's right to dress how they please.

Pro assumes that a certain type of dress can hinder a woman's freedom, yet on the contrary many Muslims feel empowered from wearing the burqa. They claim that they feel the burqa makes men respect them more; that they feel valued for more than their looks or bodies; that they are free from scrutiny; and they believe it promotes feminism. After all people have different ideas of what constitutes feminism. Either way, many Muslim women enjoy wearing the burqa and feel it is a privilege. They appreciate that it sets their identity apart, and that it is a beautiful and religious fashion statement [2].

Islam tells women to cover up their bodies to promote modesty. This is not intended to be oppressive, but protective of women. Modesty is considered to be sacred in the Islamic religion, and we have no reason to ban it the way we have no reason to ban revealing clothing in Western societies where it is popular to wear revealing clothing. "Islam allows women to work, seek knowledge, engage in business, testify in court, uphold the ties of kinship, visit the sick, and so on, but it has set limits in order to protect them and to prevent hooligans from harassing them" [3].

If a women chooses to wear the burqa because she appreciates the protection it affords, it is oppressive to ban her from wearing it - not from letting her wear it. Outlawing the burqa merely trades one form of compulsion (you must wear this) for another (you may not wear this). Pro writes, "Deliberately preventing an entire gender from participating in society as identifiable individuals is an assault on the democratic character of the state." And yet Pro is trying to deliberately prevent an entire gender from being able to dress how they please.

Re: Civic Participation

It doesn't matter that countries with widespread burqa wearing have oppressive laws against women, because this resolution is specifically about the United States. We have different legal standards in this country because we are not a theocracy.

Re: The Burka Covers Up Abuse

Burqa bans violate the concept of mutual tolerance. We are a melting pot that values diversity. This means we must respect other people's cultures outside of overt aggression. Aggression and abuse is never to be tolerated, but Pro hasn't proven that women who wear burqas are abused - he merely suggests they might be. Women who wear sunglasses, long sleeved shirts and other articles of clothing to cover up their skin might also suffer abuse, but we don't make laws and ban certain clothing to assume that they do.

Indeed the Quran makes a lot of disparaging comments against women, but so do the Bible and the Torah. The sacred books of Christians and Jews are equally abhorrent. The Bible (especially the Old Testament) promotes rape, slavery, genocide, incest, pedophilia and murder. Like the Quran, the Bible calls to slaughter infidels and also oppresses women.

Deuteronomy 22:5 *

5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Colossians 3:18 *

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Ephesians 5:22 - 25*

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

"God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men." (Leviticus 27:3-7)

I could go on and on...

But in the U.S. we assume that people do NOT follow their holy books literally. If they did, millions of Americans would have been killed per the Bible's commandments and strict rules. Yet we give people the freedom to interpret and practice their religion outside of overt aggression against others. Sharia Law is not the law of the land in the U.S. In fact the U.S. calls for a separation of church and state that does not permit the abuses described in various holy books.

On sexual equality, women would be better protected by the enforcement of existing laws against domestic violence than by the enactment of new laws forcing them to dress in a way that may be against their will [4].

Arguments

President Obama said, In the United States our basic attitude is that we’re not going to tell people what to wear" [5]. Women in the West tend to wear articles of clothing that can be deemed oppressive to women, such as high heels or bikinis if they so choose - even though many people do not approve of these styles.

We do not ban articles of clothing because we have freedom of expression and free speech. Nazi sympathizers are free to walk around in "Heil Hitler" shirts, and racists can wear racist shirts. We do not stifle what other people can wear just because it makes some uncomfortable.

Women can be required to lift their burqas in situations where security is questionable. Criminals could use ski masks or other articles of clothing if they want to conceal their faces or bodies. With most terrorist threats, women's clothing is not an issue or a factor.

Women have rights over their own bodies, and that includes the right to clothe their bodies how they see fit. We cannot ignore the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of religious expression, including speech, assembly, and practice. The Supreme Court has ruled that one way of expressing one's religion is to wear religious jewelry (pendants, rings, broaches, etc.). Another is to wear clothing (t-shirts, etc.) containing religious statements. Both are protected rights, in most cases [6].

Furthermore, Islam is not the only religion that calls for head dress and women covering up. Modesty is the foundation of Jewish values and is one of the fundamental underpinnings of the Jewish family. This is called tzniut [7]. Orthodox Jewish women have modest based dress that similarly calls for them to cover up, including head scarfs [8].

"Multiculturalism should not mean that we tolerate another culture’s intolerance. If we do in fact support diversity, women’s rights, and gay rights, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity."

Con:

"My opponent claims to care for women's rights, yet he wants to take away women's right to dress how they please."

Nope. Anyone, male or female wearing attire that can conceal weapons such as bombs or automatic weapons is in violation of the basic grounds of national security. The Burka also covers the face. There is a reason you cannot walk into a bank with a mask on. It covers up your identity. A white male cannot walk into a bank wearing a mask covering his face. The same applies to Muslim women. Religion does not supercede the law. We have seperation of church and state to give power to democratic laws and their application.

And with the rise of Islamic terrorism in the West, the threat of the burka is very real. Imagine the security issues at an airport if we were all wearing a burka or something like it.

-The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqabs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010 as a mater of national security. The law applies to men and non-Muslims.

"And yet Pro is trying to deliberately prevent an entire gender from being able to dress how they please."

Nope. A man cannot dress like that in public for the same reasons. Are you affecting my masculinity by saying I cannot walk into Wal-Mart wearing a ninja outfit?

Con:

"Burqa bans violate the concept of mutual tolerance. We are a melting pot that values diversity."

Diversity that falls under the construct of the law.

2 Quotes from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim woman who grew up in Islam-

"In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance, and abuse."

"The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex."

If the burka is so great, I pose this question . Why aren't Muslim men running to wear one?

*

If someone designed a religion where killing children was practiced, raping women was practiced, and burning down your neighbor's house was practiced, that doesn't make it a violation of your religious freedom when the cops throw you in jail. It's simply an example of a religion that violates the law of the United States with its practice. It's not the United States' job to adjust to adjust to migrants. It's migrants' job to adjust to the United States. If they have a problem with it, they can head back to the Middle East and complain to their Middle Eastern government and tell them all about it. They will be ignored and have no choice to ever take it off in public if they ever so desire.

Con:

"President Obama said..."

President Obama speaks for himself and no one else.

Con:

"Women in the West tend to wear articles of clothing that can be deemed oppressive to women, such as high heels or bikinis."

Men wear bikini bottoms too. It's also not a threat to national security.

Con:

"Nazi sympathizers are free to walk around in "Heil Hitler" shirts, and racists can wear racist shirts. We do not stifle what other people can wear just because it makes some uncomfortable."

I agree.

Con:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that one way of expressing one's religion is to wear religious jewelry... Another is to wear clothing.. containing religious statements."

None are a threat to national security.

Con:Modesty in other religions-

There's a difference between modesty and threats to national security.

1. I argued that it's hypocritical to advocate for women's rights, but then take away their right to freedom of dress.

Pro says that this right is undermined by people's right to safety. He claims burqas can hide dangerous threats. I've already addressed this point in the last round and my opponent completely ignored my argument. As I've already explained, women can be required to lift their burqas in situations where security is questionable. Criminals could use ski masks or other articles of clothing if they want to conceal their faces or bodies. With most terrorist threats, women's clothing is not an issue or a factor. Moreover, other religious groups wear long clothing that can cover people's body parts and conceal weapons; however, we do not ban those articles of clothing and simply subject people to certain security measures.

2. I pointed out that many Muslim women feel empowered by wearing the burqa and prefer to wear it.

Pro replied, "There's a reason we have separation of church and state." This separation of church and state does not apply to his position in the burqa ban (nor does it address my argument). Said clause means the government cannot create laws to promote a religion; however the law does protect people's freedom of religious expression. More about that later.

I said women should have freedom to dress how they please, and Pro responded that men shouldn't be able to wear burqas either. That's irrelevant - I'm arguing that both men and women should have the freedom to wear a burqa. Pro asks, "Are you affecting my masculinity by saying I cannot walk into Wal-Mart wearing a ninja outfit?" Again my position has nothing to do with one's sex. And laws of religious freedom do not apply to Ninja outfits, however I believe you should be able to wear your Ninja outfit in Wal-Mart, and the law allows you to do so.

Pro asks why Muslim men don't wear burqas. Men most often do not wear the same style of clothes as women in any culture. Further, men are not called for the same level of modesty in any of the Abrahamic religions.

3. I noted that Islam promotes modesty to protect women, not oppress them.

Pro has dropped every single one of my arguments noting that many Muslim women prefer to wear the burqa and why. Please extend those points. It proves they should have the freedom to dress how they please and that wearing the burqa is not necessarily dangerous or oppressive.

4. I mentioned that burqa bans do not embrace tolerance. While aggression is not acceptable, diversity is.

Pro repeats that we should not accept Islamic aggression and I agree... but that's irrelevant to this debate. He continues to provide antagonistic examples that are not analogous, such as when someone murders or rapes in the name of religion. Once again I agree that aggression should be expressly forbidden in this society, however wearing a burqa is NOT aggressive whereas rape and violence is aggressive.

6. I've proven that other holy books (like the Bible and Torah) are equally violent and sexist as the Quran.

Not surprisingly, Pro has dropped all of these arguments. I have proven his Islamophobia is not warranted. Further on this point, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent [1]. Moreover, I also pointed out that other religions (like conservative Jews) call for modest dress, including head coverings. Pro claims other people's dress does not pose a threat to national security which does not make sense. If his argument is that the burqa and long clothing can conceal weapons and other threats, then in order to be logically consistent, that must apply to every long clothing or style of dress that can conceal things - such as the conservative dress that conservative Christians and Jews wear, pictured here [2].

7. We do not dictate what people wear in this country; we have freedom of expression and free speech.

Pro claims that Obama's quote doesn't matter, but completely drops this point. Actually he agrees and notes that racists and Nazis can wear offensive clothing -- so by his logic, people should be able to wear the burqa, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

8. The first amendment grants us freedom of religious expression; SCOTUS has ruled that includes dress.

Pro dropped this and repeats the same "national security" argument. Please extend my argument from the last round (repeated here under Point 1). There are ways to promote security while still allowing for religious freedom. Extend my arguments on previous SCOTUS rulings and legal precedent, which my opponent has unfortunately dropped.

"These defenders of Islam fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. They may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

*

People guilty of a crime can and have slipped on burkas to evade police.

And guess what the next cry is. They don't think you should be able to show a picture of the Muslim female without the veil for "religious reasons", despite the fact that this would make future terrorists and criminals unidentifiable. They want their cake, to eat it too and to get another piece. They moved here to a democratic country. We did not move to Pakistan.

"Islam was like a mental cage. At first, when you open the door, the caged bird stays inside: it is frightened. It has internalized its imprisonment. It takes time for the bird to escape, even after someone has opened the doors to its cage.

*

Egypt, a Muslim country, bans the veil 'because it is NOT Islamic'. Egyptian lawmakers have argued that full face veils are actually un-Islamic and even go against what the Quran advocates.

Parliamentarians in the Egypt Support Coalition, loyal to President Abdul Fattah Al Sissi, said the push for a ban is also based on religious and security grounds.

Pro's entire last round was citing examples of terrorism where people wore burqas. Just because some people wearing burqas have committed acts of terrorism, doesn't mean we should ban burqas. Extend my arguments on not banning the other types of clothing that are often worn by criminals, especially ski masks [1]. Yankee hats are also popular among criminals for some reason [2]. Another example is that we don't ban spray paint just because people often use it to tag things illegally. We do not inhibit freedom based on some people's abuse of freedom.

Furthermore, please extend my arguments on increasing security (and making people lift burqas where need be). In fact extend all of my arguments from the last few rounds, because my opponent has not effectively responded to any of them.

"Pro's entire last round was citing examples of terrorism where people wore burqas. Just because some people wearing burqas have committed acts of terrorism, doesn't mean we should ban burqas."

But if wearing any nonreligious apparel was an obvious threat to national security, we would delightfully ban it. Attaching "God" to something does not give it superior power over the law, otherwise "seperation of church and state" is a bs concept, and we should democratically go to "Christian law" simply because the majority of Americans claim to be Christian. Fair is fair, or is seperation of church and state legally valid? If it is not, Christianity would get its way by default.

*

Con:

"Yankee hats are also popular among criminals for some reason."

Yankees hats do not conceal your identity.

*

Con:

"Another example is that we don't ban spray paint just because people often use it to tag things illegally."

Spray paint is not a threat to national security, nor does it does conceal your identity.

*

Con:

"We do not dictate what people wear in this country; we have freedom of expression and free speech."

Unless it threatens the national security of the United States. Europe is much more Liberal overall than the United States, and it has banned the burka overall. Why? It has posed a law enforcement problem.

*

"I've proven that other holy books (like the Bible and Torah) are equally violent and sexist as the Quran."

I have proven the Old Testament is not the source of ethics for Christians because of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is why Christians do not sacrifice animals, eefrain from a myriad of foods, or stone adulterers as the OT commands as per Moses. Islam has no even semi-Jesus like teaching. Jesus, in the Christian Bible never commands violence from its followers. Muhammed did. This is why figures like Bill Maher(Atheist) and Gandhi(Hindu) are fine with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Richard Dawkins, one of the leaders of the New Atheist movement had this to say, “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."

Pro writes, "But if wearing any nonreligious apparel was an obvious threat to national security, we would delightfully ban it."

That is not true. I've given examples of other things (like ski masks) which we don't ban, despite being a threat.

Nevertheless, the fact that a burqa is protected under religious freedom laws is very relevant to this debate.

1. I've proven that many women appreciate wearing the burqa; Pro dropped it.2. I've proven that Islam is just one of many religions that promotes modest dress.3. I've proven that the burqa is not a security threat; it can be lifted and additional security checks can be used where need-be.4. I've proven that we have free speech and freedom of religious expression that protects religious clothing.

Please extend all of my arguments that my opponent has dropped. Thank you.

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: pro says the burqa oppresses women, then Con responds with points about how many women feel empowered by wearing the burqa which Pro dropped throughout the debate. Pro also said the burqa might cover up abuse, and Con said we do not ban sunglasses or long sleeves that might cover up abuse, and it is racist to think Islam is definitely abusive, because other religions also promote modesty and have holy books that encourage abuse. Pro said burqas might encourage terrorism and Con said security measures can be used like asking people to lift their burqas but burqas should not be banned. Con said it is a matter of religious freedom according to the Constitution but Pro dropped this point. Con explained the government gives us the right to religious freedom and clothing freedom and burqa bans are unnecessary.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does a sufficient job of analyzing the points given in the debate and explaining where Con is winning.
********************************************************** **************

Reasons for voting decision: pro says the burqa oppresses women, then Con responds with points about how many women feel empowered by wearing the burqa which Pro dropped throughout the debate. Pro also said the burqa might cover up abuse, and Con said we do not ban sunglasses or long sleeves that might cover up abuse, and it is racist to think Islam is definitely abusive, because other religions also promote modesty and have holy books that encourage abuse. Pro said burqas might encourage terrorism and Con said security measures can be used like asking people to lift their burqas but burqas should not be banned. Con said it is a matter of religious freedom according to the Constitution but Pro dropped this point. Con explained the government gives us the right to religious freedom and clothing freedom and burqa bans are unnecessary.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.